AMD Dual Core Price Drop Consideration, and DDR2

hbweb500

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2006
8
0
18,510
Im somewhat confused. Im in the market to build a new computer. My current desktop is a 2.4 GHz Celeron Northwood w/ 8KBytes of L1 and 128 KB of L2 cache (yeah, I know). Its a Dell (again, I know). Im thinking that this time around, Im building my own computer w/ an AMD (the Conroe will be better, but not for my price range), and Im doing some research so I dont buy a nice-sounding 2.4 GHz and it turns out to be as poor a performer as this is.

As far as price goes, Im looking around $150 +/- $25. The processor I have been interested in is the Athlon 64 3800+ Orleans, which is $145 at Newegg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103631

Now, I have heard about the upcoming price-drops on July 24th (or around then), and I took a glance at the dual cores for the hell of it. A 50% price cut might put the X2 3800+, 4000+, and 4200+ in my range (current prices are $297, $357, $358 respectively).

So my question is, would it be better to stay with the single core 3800+ and save some cash, or jump to a dual core? I dont play many games, I run Linux and Windows, and I do multitask a lot, so it would seem that the dual core is an obvious choice. But some performance benchmarks I have seen show that single cores outperform double cores at some tasks. Maybe I would be better to save some money with a single core. I am strapped for cash as it is, and I only want to upgrade if it would be an obvious and absolute advantage. The jump to double core needs to be worth it.

Also, looking at Newegg, which is better to buy, the 4000+ or the 4200+, if they are the same price? Something strange going on there...

In addition, I want to make sure that the 3800+ Orleans single core will work with PC2 6400 ram. I have seen comments saying that it will only work with pc2 5400 and below, that a X2 processor is required to use PC 6400. Is this true?

Thanks for the help!
Justin
 
I'd get the dual core as especially Linux will benefit from SMP. However, there are no more X2 4000+ dual cores as AMD is phasing out all 1MB L2 cache per core chips (single-core 3700+, 4000+, dual core 4000+, 4400+, 4800+) except for the Opterons and FXs. And yes, the single-core AM2 chips can only use DDR2 RAM at up to DDR2-667- the X2s take the -800 stuff.
 

hbweb500

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2006
8
0
18,510
Well, IF the 4000+ is still around Newegg at the end of this month, and it gets the price cut too (which is doubtful if AMD is phasing it out), and it is still the same price as the 4200+, which would be the better buy?
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
Im somewhat confused. Im in the market to build a new computer. My current desktop is a 2.4 GHz Celeron Northwood w/ 8KBytes of L1 and 128 KB of L2 cache (yeah, I know). Its a Dell (again, I know). Im thinking that this time around, Im building my own computer w/ an AMD (the Conroe will be better, but not for my price range), and Im doing some research so I dont buy a nice-sounding 2.4 GHz and it turns out to be as poor a performer as this is.

As far as price goes, Im looking around $150 +/- $25. The processor I have been interested in is the Athlon 64 3800+ Orleans, which is $145 at Newegg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103631

Now, I have heard about the upcoming price-drops on July 24th (or around then), and I took a glance at the dual cores for the hell of it. A 50% price cut might put the X2 3800+, 4000+, and 4200+ in my range (current prices are $297, $357, $358 respectively).

So my question is, would it be better to stay with the single core 3800+ and save some cash, or jump to a dual core? I dont play many games, I run Linux and Windows, and I do multitask a lot, so it would seem that the dual core is an obvious choice. But some performance benchmarks I have seen show that single cores outperform double cores at some tasks. Maybe I would be better to save some money with a single core. I am strapped for cash as it is, and I only want to upgrade if it would be an obvious and absolute advantage. The jump to double core needs to be worth it.

Also, looking at Newegg, which is better to buy, the 4000+ or the 4200+, if they are the same price? Something strange going on there...

In addition, I want to make sure that the 3800+ Orleans single core will work with PC2 6400 ram. I have seen comments saying that it will only work with pc2 5400 and below, that a X2 processor is required to use PC 6400. Is this true?

Thanks for the help!
Justin

Definitely get dual core. It will provide you with a better platform for Vista and even allow you to keep more programs running in the background - that systray may snatch CPU time right when you enter that hellacious firefight or when you're DVD is almost finished. Not to mention Flash. I used to have to close IE or Firefox (or at least close the tabs ) before starting games.

Dual core was the answer to my gamer's dreams. If you can get an extra GB of RAM, WOW 8O

It even helped in the productivity arena (for me VS2005/SQL 2005/Virtual Server).

If you can affors it it's the right move.
 

Vinny

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2004
402
0
18,780
According to this
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2800

The 3800+ will be $142 and the X2 3800 will be $169. That's a whopping difference of $27. Considering you're thinking about shelling out $142 for 1 core, you might as well just shell out an extra 27 and get a 2nd core.

Its $27. Get a dual.

What? That's ridicilous... you'd think they would drop the price of the Ahtlons a bit, maybe by another $20 or $30. There's no way I can not get a X2 3800+ now. 8)

Too bad games don't benefit from dual cores and according to TH's CPU charts, more often then a dual core hurts performance. But that was with 939, I wonder if the same's true for AM2. :?:
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
According to this
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2800

The 3800+ will be $142 and the X2 3800 will be $169. That's a whopping difference of $27. Considering you're thinking about shelling out $142 for 1 core, you might as well just shell out an extra 27 and get a 2nd core.

Its $27. Get a dual.

What? That's ridicilous... you'd think they would drop the price of the Ahtlons a bit, maybe by another $20 or $30. There's no way I can not get a X2 3800+ now. 8)

Too bad games don't benefit from dual cores and according to TH's CPU charts, more often then a dual core hurts performance. But that was with 939, I wonder if the same's true for AM2. :?:


Games actually do benefit from dual core. You have to look at multitasking. It allows you to run more background programs. Also, with dual core if a program spikes the CPU you can still see what's going on (happened to me the other day).

The idea isn't that single core is expensive but that the jump to dual core is inexpensive. Some people will save the $27.
 

hbweb500

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2006
8
0
18,510
OK, good stuff. I am definitely going for the X2 now. Just reading the reviews on Newegg on the X2 3800+ is enough for me, I dont game much, so the single core advantage is worthless to me.
 

xsandman

Distinguished
May 26, 2006
232
0
18,680
OK, good stuff. I am definitely going for the X2 now. Just reading the reviews on Newegg on the X2 3800+ is enough for me, I dont game much, so the single core advantage is worthless to me.

While dual core does help some in gaming, it helps even more on other applications if they are coded for multithreading. Photoshop is one that benefits GREATLY from dual core. Also if you run multiple programs simultaneously, it will run faster because each program will have different threads.
 

hbweb500

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2006
8
0
18,510
OK, good stuff. I am definitely going for the X2 now. Just reading the reviews on Newegg on the X2 3800+ is enough for me, I dont game much, so the single core advantage is worthless to me.

While dual core does help some in gaming, it helps even more on other applications if they are coded for multithreading. Photoshop is one that benefits GREATLY from dual core. Also if you run multiple programs simultaneously, it will run faster because each program will have different threads.

Im frustrated with my Celeron (it slows up on my dual monitor setup, Firefox is like molasses, IE is worse) and my Dell (Linux is slow on it too, some hardware conflict/poor CPU). I play old games (Red Alert 2, Blitzkrieg, Call of Duty). I want a CPU that will enable me to do my normal multitasking, web browsing, music playing, dual monitor activities in their fullest glory. I also use Photoshop, Premiere Pro, and Fruity Loops. In addition, I run a server, and I am going to be doing some heavy CAD work in college. The dual core processor looks awesome right now.
 

xsandman

Distinguished
May 26, 2006
232
0
18,680
OK, good stuff. I am definitely going for the X2 now. Just reading the reviews on Newegg on the X2 3800+ is enough for me, I dont game much, so the single core advantage is worthless to me.

While dual core does help some in gaming, it helps even more on other applications if they are coded for multithreading. Photoshop is one that benefits GREATLY from dual core. Also if you run multiple programs simultaneously, it will run faster because each program will have different threads.

Im frustrated with my Celeron (it slows up on my dual monitor setup, Firefox is like molasses, IE is worse) and my Dell (Linux is slow on it too, some hardware conflict/poor CPU). I play old games (Red Alert 2, Blitzkrieg, Call of Duty). I want a CPU that will enable me to do my normal multitasking, web browsing, music playing, dual monitor activities in their fullest glory. I also use Photoshop, Premiere Pro, and Fruity Loops. In addition, I run a server, and I am going to be doing some heavy CAD work in college. The dual core processor looks awesome right now.

Yeah, then definitely go with dual core. Either the low end conroe or the low end AMD. The low end Conroe will be $183, so it may be worth it because it performs much better than the mid and low end AMD dual core chips.